These questions arise from a much simpler point.
Personally, I'm in favour of gun rights in America and also in places where it's practically a dangerzone with terror attacks happening very often. But this isn't the question here. The real problem is actually the immigration crisis. It seems like it's much easier to argue that guns could have stopped these attacks than to say that immigration control could have stopped them.
The fact that the terrorists almost all came the same routes that the other Syrians come from -from Asia to Greece to France etc- shows that there is a real danger with the immigrants. There may be a lot of real refugees amongst the crowd (of which this is another point for different debate) but the risk of having real Islamic radical group having free passageway into all the countries of Europe is much too high.

Then fun part is that these people were actually homegrown terrorists, so they already radicalized in France or Belgium. So rather then blaming Syrian refugees who come to Europe for the first time we should maybe focus on preventing young Muslims to radicalize. Cause problems like this aren't new in the suburbs of Brussels/Paris.

And cut that gun crap, fucking hillbillies always thinking with their guns rather then their mind. It's just a swift stupid reaction which will only get us in more trouble on the longer term.

If we are gonna treat this like after 9/11 then we're gonna have a lot of fun right? Cause that war on terror really worked out.

Quingen ''I think i've got an hemorrhoid''
Little_Midget ''Insurgency is NOT fun''
HoneyBadger ''I do not fap, I just rub it against the wall' - lubricated' ​

Sysadmin

Both options are unrealistic. Hence my previous post. You'll never see a world were literally everyone is armed.

If mutual armament would be an effective deterent factor then you wouldn't see most wars.
Regarding terrorism it would only increase the 'price' and/or the way an attack gets executed. You can't stop, or better said, you can't deter fanatics/believers/psychotics. As a student of law I guess you know that damn good. Just have a look on how deterring the death penalty is....
Even the most imaginable cruel punishment will still not stop a pedophiliac and a country full of Rambo's

Do countries with death penalty have a lower major crime rate?
Pay a look at an arbitrary central African country. Is the amount of available full-auto firearms in such countries deterring terrorism?
To stop terrorism you need to find out why it happens exactly. You would need to relate to the minds of these terrorists to determine why they are doing what they do and why so many people support them and you would need to be willing to change if needed.

So basically, you can't deter terrorists. You can't deter people who don't care wether they die or not. You must dry-out the ground of terrorism to prevent it from putting down roots. Everything else is 'just' actionism.

Both options are unrealistic. Hence my previous post. You'll never see a world were literally everyone is armed.

If mutual armament would be an effective deterent factor then you wouldn't see most wars.
Regarding terrorism it would only increase the 'price' and/or the way an attack gets executed. You can't stop, or better said, you can't deter fanatics/believers/psychotics. As a student of law I guess you know that damn good. Just have a look on how deterring the death penalty is....
Even the most imaginable cruel punishment will still not stop a pedophiliac and a country full of Rambo's

Do countries with death penalty have a lower major crime rate?
Pay a look at an arbitrary central African country. Is the amount of available full-auto firearms in such countries deterring terrorism?
To stop terrorism you need to find out why it happens exactly. You would need to relate to the minds of these terrorists to determine why they are doing what they do and why so many people support them and you would need to be willing to change if needed.

So basically, you can't deter terrorists. You can't deter people who don't care wether they die or not. You must dry-out the ground of terrorism to prevent it from putting down roots. Everything else is 'just' actionism.

Click to expand...

Regardless of the deterrent effect, you can stop someone in the act by being armed when you are otherwise helpless until they stop or are stopped by someone who is armed. Who do they send in when someone does something like this? The armed police. The only realistic way to stop armed individuals is with arms. To disarm the populace is to take away their right to self defense and make them dependent on you. The guns used in France weren't legal. That didn't stop them. You can't disarm everyone, even with the most Orwellian of tactics.

That doesn't inherit it's the people who should stop them.
Btw, using a terror attack on this scale to argue in favor or arms is like justifying torture with a 'ticking-bomb-scenario'. It's just non-sense.
It's also not the job of the people to 'produce' security. That's the job of the police. You can't expect people facing well trained and experienced terrorists.
Arming the population of a country to prepare for a situation the vast majority of this people will never experience in their lifetime is devoid of logic.

That doesn't inherit it's the people who should stop them.
Btw, using a terror attack on this scale to argue in favor or arms is like justifying torture with a 'ticking-bomb-scenario'. It's just non-sense.
It's also not the job of the people to 'produce' security. That's the job of the police. You can't expect people facing well trained and experienced terrorists.
Arming the population of a country to prepare for a situation the vast majority of this people will never experience in their lifetime is devoid of logic.[

Click to expand...

That's not what I said in the slightest. Nobody is saying we should arm the citizens and have them fight terrorists. What some of us are saying is that people have a natural right to meaningful self defense. People should be able to arm themeslves and defend themselves against people who attack them. It's sadistic to expect people to die like dogs in a kennel when they have no way to fight back except run into the back of a wall of people. Put yourselves in the shoes of the victims and ask them how well the police did "their job" when it took them minutes to respond. Every second that passes is another second that nobody has done anything about the person slaughtering people.

Sysadmin

Nobody is saying we should arm the citizens and have them fight terrorists. What some of us are saying is that people have a natural right to meaningful self defense.

Click to expand...

And no one is denying the right to defend yourself. Some of us just think that you are always mixing up the right to defend yourself and the right to carry a gun while in fact these are 2 different things.

It's sadistic to expect people to die like dogs in a kennel when they have no way to fight back except run into the back of a wall of people. Put yourselves in the shoes of the victims and ask them how well the police did "their job" when it took them minutes to respond.

Click to expand...

Like said, shootings like this are far from being usual and you can't prepare for every imaginable situation in your life. Following your logic you would need to allow every imaginable weapon in the hands of civilians. I mean the next civil war might be closer then you think and what do you do if your government comes with tanks, in the end it's your right to defend yourself right? #ofc I am joking now.
Is it sadistic to not hand out guns? Is it cynical to hand out guns after so many died because of guns?

The thing is. There might be a trillion reasons why america has such issues with gun crimes. The only answer to this is always "let's sell even more guns" and recent history has clearly shown that this doesn't help or does it? Maybe it's about time to try a different approach. Maybe a more sophisticated approach. Answering violence with violence is rarely a good advice.
As a german I can say that I've never felt insecure in my whole life even though I live in a country where you have a good chance to never ever see a real live firearm. I guess I can say that most Germans share this personal feeling of security. I actually feel way more safe by knowing that no one around me has a gun and a terror act like the one in france doesn't change my attitude at all.

Do I really have to expect a threat for my life that often, that it justifies the risks of carrying a gun 24/7? I highly doubt that.

EDIT: I'll just leave this here. ↓ It would be a really funny video if the matter wouldn't be so sad.

PR:BF2 Resident Administrator

My GitHub Account | Do you even Mumble?!? | #JeSuisChav | Midnight made this awesome signature
"That's strange, ssh normally allocates a terminal when you connect. What are you using to access the server?" - "WinSCP"
"That is because a rocket has to be aerodynamic ... and a penis is also very aerodynamic" - "Aijt"​

My GitHub Account | Do you even Mumble?!? | #JeSuisChav | Midnight made this awesome signature
"That's strange, ssh normally allocates a terminal when you connect. What are you using to access the server?" - "WinSCP"
"That is because a rocket has to be aerodynamic ... and a penis is also very aerodynamic" - "Aijt"​

Sysadmin

I like how a perfect and nicely written storyboard on youtube gets responded by 'they are just a hate group'

Yea...why coming up with valid arguments and facts when you just can call someone a 'hate group'. Especially when it comes from someone who is black. Because, hey, he is black...he has to know it.
Actually, what this officer said is a perfect example of ignoring the chain of events. As if 'black lives matter' would have started shooting black people....

That's like someone having a really good argument about why american foreign politics is so damn bad and then during it you can hear some redneck in the crowd sreaming 'MURICA'

I would like to know what classifies the actions of 'BLM' as being a 'hate group' or a 'terror organization'. In what way do they terrorize the United States?

PR:BF2 Resident Administrator

The funny thing is that the ideas from the black lives matter movement would also save white people from being shot by the police.

In my opinion it is mostly not knowing how to handle a sitiuation. Mix it with a little bit of racism and the officers have no idea what to do and pull out the gun.

My GitHub Account | Do you even Mumble?!? | #JeSuisChav | Midnight made this awesome signature
"That's strange, ssh normally allocates a terminal when you connect. What are you using to access the server?" - "WinSCP"
"That is because a rocket has to be aerodynamic ... and a penis is also very aerodynamic" - "Aijt"​

If you know who the leaders are of BLM and what they've done and said then you should know by now that you can't really take em seriously. I dont take groups seriously that only come up for their own racegroup making it kind of racist themselves, especially when you go through some messages that are being said in the name of BLM...

Just like I won't take extreme right wing groups seriously.
So no I'm not answering the youtube video per se, since I didn't even watch it. This video just came up in me since I watched it not too long ago.

It's about equality and all lives, when we start shouting black/white/yellow/purple its already done and we're already classifying each other as different.

Harsh picture, tweets like that are quite stupid and don't make sense imo, but it kind of says it all. There's to much victimizing of groups. Just full of self-pity.

Quingen ''I think i've got an hemorrhoid''
Little_Midget ''Insurgency is NOT fun''
HoneyBadger ''I do not fap, I just rub it against the wall' - lubricated' ​

It's about equality and all lives, when we start shouting black/white/yellow/purple its already done and we're already classifying each other as different.

Click to expand...

We have different colors. That seems to be enough of a 'difference' for some.

The image in your post also doesn't make sense as it misses the topic. It's not about people shooting people. It's about authorities abusing their power. Or better said, it is about a system allowing police officers to legitimately kill people on very vague assumptions. It's about this 'an officer only needs to [feel] threatened' to be allowed to open fire.

Ofc you may can find arguments about BLM but that also misses the point. Why are we talking about what BLM did wrong or what this people, who have been shot, did wrong, while we (or they) should rather talk about a fucked up system. In the end that is what BLM and all the other 'human rights' organisation try to accomplish and nothing more.

The officers who were killed are being treated with dignity and respect as they should be. No one reported about those officers’ past infractions or how many complaints had been made against them or their family members’ criminal records. No politicians spoke out in support of the killer, the NRA didn’t put out a statement supporting his second amendment rights, and televised news didn’t replay the footage of their deaths over and over and over speculating that maybe they would have lived if they’d just taken cover here or had worn different equipment, no one speculated whether a medical condition may have contributed to any of the officer’s deaths. There’s no campaign raising hundreds of thousands of dollars in support of the man who shot those officers, he’s not on national news telling his side of the story in some twisted mockery of fair and balanced reporting, the man who committed these killings was blown up by a robot.

My GitHub Account | Do you even Mumble?!? | #JeSuisChav | Midnight made this awesome signature
"That's strange, ssh normally allocates a terminal when you connect. What are you using to access the server?" - "WinSCP"
"That is because a rocket has to be aerodynamic ... and a penis is also very aerodynamic" - "Aijt"​